Pages tagged "Taxes"

As Will Rogers said, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!" In the last four years, the Obama administration has dug our country deeper and deeper into several painful and dangerous holes. It's time to stop digging and find better solutions.

Pres. Obama's economic policies have eroded the earning power of the middle class and mired us in the slowest-growing post-recession economy in decades. A wave of new taxes will hit working families in January. Billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted on a useless "stimulus" and "green" companies that went bankrupt. To date, Pres. Obama has added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt since taking office.

Meanwhile, unemployment stood above 8 percent for 43 straight months during Pres. Obama's tenure. Companies aren't hiring – in large part because of the uncertainty and poor prospects created by heavy-handed government regulations and a chaotic tax environment.

Mitt Romney has a better solution. By lowering tax rates across the board, while eliminating deductions and loopholes for high-end earners, we can broaden the tax base and bring in more revenue without raising taxes on the middle class. Responsible bipartisan efforts to cut non-security spending and reform the tax code, along with opening up more energy resources on this continent, will spur economic growth and cut the deficit. Lower corporate tax rates and more sensible regulations will make it possible for new businesses to start and for established businesses to grow.

Another hole is being dug by the rising costs of health care and the looming bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security. Obamacare is already adding to the cost of health care for families and many employers have said they may have to drop their employee insurance plans under its restrictions. We will have to slash entitlement benefits and raise taxes to punishing levels if we don't get a handle on how Medicare and Social Security are structured.

The answer to these problems lies in allowing increased competition to bring down costs, while providing a secure safety net for those in need. Mitt Romney wants to repeal and replace Obamacare with a free-market system that protects people with preexisting conditions and the poor. His plan for Medicare reform shields everyone age 55 and older from any changes to the system and will keep traditional Medicare available for those younger workers who choose it. That will strengthen Medicare and offer the same benefits at lower cost to today's younger workers when they reach retirement age.

In foreign policy, Pres. Obama has pursued a naïve and dangerous policy that has given our enemies new openings to harm us, as in Benghazi, Libya. Pres. Obama's mixed messages and inaction during the Arab Spring have allowed Islamist forces to gain ground in several countries. He was silent during the 2010 freedom demonstrations in Iran and his response to the civil war in Syria has not advanced freedom, peace, or U.S. interests in the region.

Mitt Romney proposes a principled policy that puts America's national interests first and that projects American diplomatic, economic, and if absolutely necessary, military strength to protect those interests. Romney understands that we must stand with our allies and continue the fight against the radical Islamists who threaten our security and our democratic values.

The U.S.-Israel alliance has been badly hurt by the antipathy Pres. Obama has shown to Israel and her leaders. The military cooperation mandated by our pro-Israel Congress is strong, but the level of trust and cooperation between the two governments is low. Pres. Obama's made the "1967 borders" and Israeli construction freezes starting points for negotiations, which reinforced Palestinian intransigence and made peace between Israel and the Palestinians even more elusive.

Mitt Romney will stand with Israel, knowing that Israel is our best ally and an important partner with the U.S., and understanding that strong strategic, economic, and moral ties bind the two countries.

One of the most dangerous threats to American national security today is the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Congress supported sanctions on Iran (sometimes over the President's objection) but the diplomatic effort to support those sanctions has been weak and ineffectual. That is why Russia and China have routinely stymied efforts to create a truly effective international sanctions regime that might deter the Iranians. A nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel, a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and a clear threat to America's interests and those of our European and Asian allies. The President's policies have given Iran almost four years to continue enriching uranium; they now approach the quantity and quality needed to create nuclear weapons.

Mitt Romney is committed to stopping Iran from acquiring the capability to build nuclear weapons. Our national security, and the security of our most important allies around the globe, depends on a strong U.S. policy toward Iran.

The American people face a significant choice in just a few days' time: a choice between a government-run, top-down economy and a free-market, opportunity economy; a choice between the weakness that invites attacks and the strength to keep our country secure; and a choice between leaving our children a country that we have built and enriched with freedom and ingenuity, or leaving them a country shackled in debt and diminished in scope. It's not too late to stop digging holes and start building our country again.

As Will Rogers said, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!" In the last four years, the Obama administration has dug our country deeper and deeper into several painful and dangerous holes. It's time to stop digging and find better solutions.

Pres. Obama's economic policies have eroded the earning power of the middle class and mired us in the slowest-growing post-recession economy in decades. A wave of new taxes will hit working families in January. Billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted on a useless "stimulus" and "green" companies that went bankrupt. To date, Pres. Obama has added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt since taking office.

Meanwhile, unemployment stood above 8 percent for 43 straight months during Pres. Obama's tenure. Companies aren't hiring – in large part because of the uncertainty and poor prospects created by heavy-handed government regulations and a chaotic tax environment.

Mitt Romney has a better solution. By lowering tax rates across the board, while eliminating deductions and loopholes for high-end earners, we can broaden the tax base and bring in more revenue without raising taxes on the middle class. Responsible bipartisan efforts to cut non-security spending and reform the tax code, along with opening up more energy resources on this continent, will spur economic growth and cut the deficit. Lower corporate tax rates and more sensible regulations will make it possible for new businesses to start and for established businesses to grow.

Another hole is being dug by the rising costs of health care and the looming bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security. Obamacare is already adding to the cost of health care for families and many employers have said they may have to drop their employee insurance plans under its restrictions. We will have to slash entitlement benefits and raise taxes to punishing levels if we don't get a handle on how Medicare and Social Security are structured.

The answer to these problems lies in allowing increased competition to bring down costs, while providing a secure safety net for those in need. Mitt Romney wants to repeal and replace Obamacare with a free-market system that protects people with preexisting conditions and the poor. His plan for Medicare reform shields everyone age 55 and older from any changes to the system and will keep traditional Medicare available for those younger workers who choose it. That will strengthen Medicare and offer the same benefits at lower cost to today's younger workers when they reach retirement age.

In foreign policy, Pres. Obama has pursued a naïve and dangerous policy that has given our enemies new openings to harm us, as in Benghazi, Libya. Pres. Obama's mixed messages and inaction during the Arab Spring have allowed Islamist forces to gain ground in several countries. He was silent during the 2010 freedom demonstrations in Iran and his response to the civil war in Syria has not advanced freedom, peace, or U.S. interests in the region.

Mitt Romney proposes a principled policy that puts America's national interests first and that projects American diplomatic, economic, and if absolutely necessary, military strength to protect those interests. Romney understands that we must stand with our allies and continue the fight against the radical Islamists who threaten our security and our democratic values.

The U.S.-Israel alliance has been badly hurt by the antipathy Pres. Obama has shown to Israel and her leaders. The military cooperation mandated by our pro-Israel Congress is strong, but the level of trust and cooperation between the two governments is low. Pres. Obama's made the "1967 borders" and Israeli construction freezes starting points for negotiations, which reinforced Palestinian intransigence and made peace between Israel and the Palestinians even more elusive.

Mitt Romney will stand with Israel, knowing that Israel is our best ally and an important partner with the U.S., and understanding that strong strategic, economic, and moral ties bind the two countries.

One of the most dangerous threats to American national security today is the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Congress supported sanctions on Iran (sometimes over the President's objection) but the diplomatic effort to support those sanctions has been weak and ineffectual. That is why Russia and China have routinely stymied efforts to create a truly effective international sanctions regime that might deter the Iranians. A nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel, a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and a clear threat to America's interests and those of our European and Asian allies. The President's policies have given Iran almost four years to continue enriching uranium; they now approach the quantity and quality needed to create nuclear weapons.

Mitt Romney is committed to stopping Iran from acquiring the capability to build nuclear weapons. Our national security, and the security of our most important allies around the globe, depends on a strong U.S. policy toward Iran.

The American people face a significant choice in just a few days' time: a choice between a government-run, top-down economy and a free-market, opportunity economy; a choice between the weakness that invites attacks and the strength to keep our country secure; and a choice between leaving our children a country that we have built and enriched with freedom and ingenuity, or leaving them a country shackled in debt and diminished in scope. It's not too late to stop digging holes and start building our country again.

“Mitt Romney took control of the first debate and won it handily on both substance and style.

“Last night Americans saw the real Mitt Romney - not the caricature of the attack ads and biased media reports. They saw Romney in command of the facts, secure in his principles, and demonstrating the leadership and competence that have been missing in the White House for nearly four years.

“Romney made his case effectively on taxes, jobs, protecting the middle class, and health care. But he also gave voice to the enduring values of America, showed how far we have strayed from them under the Obama administration, and pledged to turn America back onto the path of economic growth and opportunity for all."

“Mitt Romney took control of the first debate and won it handily on both substance and style.

“Last night Americans saw the real Mitt Romney - not the caricature of the attack ads and biased media reports. They saw Romney in command of the facts, secure in his principles, and demonstrating the leadership and competence that have been missing in the White House for nearly four years.

“Romney made his case effectively on taxes, jobs, protecting the middle class, and health care. But he also gave voice to the enduring values of America, showed how far we have strayed from them under the Obama administration, and pledged to turn America back onto the path of economic growth and opportunity for all."

RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan are right to reject the notion that America is doomed to economic stagnation and a loss of influence around the world. President Obama wants Americans to believe that - because he's determined to evade blame for his failures in office. But today in Norfolk, Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan made a powerful argument that America can do better - if we embrace the bold, principled leadership they're offering.

"Paul Ryan has challenged both party leaderships in Washington to face up to growing fiscal problems that threaten to blight our nation's future. And while congressional Republicans have responded to the challenge, Democrats have ducked responsibility. The Democrat-controlled US Senate hasn't passed a budget since 2009. And Obama's Treasury Secretary admitted to Congressman Ryan that the administration prefers to only criticize GOP efforts and therefore, will not put a plan of its own to save Medicare and other troubled programs on the table.

"Today, on behalf of himself and Gov. Romney, Paul Ryan promised, 'We won't duck the tough issues...we will lead!' That commitment - one Paul Ryan is well-qualified by his experience to fulfill - creates a stark and favorable contrast with the increasingly desperate Obama administration."

Regarding the House Budget Committee Chairman's commitment to national security, Brooks added, "Paul Ryan also understands that America must continue to serve as a bulwark against deadly threats in the international arena. He's successfully fought efforts to trim the budget by hollowing out our military, noting that because the consequences of American decline would be so destabilizing, 'a safer world and a more prosperous America go hand-in-hand.'

"And we are pleased that by picking Paul Ryan, Gov. Romney has opted for a running mate who has a record Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, has already praised as 'very supportive' of the Jewish state. Paul Ryan has earned appreciation from pro-Israel voters by rejecting the Obama administration's tactic of pressuring Israel to make concessions its leaders believe will undermine its security - and he rightly insists that a rejection of violence and incitement on the Palestinian side is an essential precondition for a meaningful peace agreement."

RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan are right to reject the notion that America is doomed to economic stagnation and a loss of influence around the world. President Obama wants Americans to believe that - because he's determined to evade blame for his failures in office. But today in Norfolk, Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan made a powerful argument that America can do better - if we embrace the bold, principled leadership they're offering.

"Paul Ryan has challenged both party leaderships in Washington to face up to growing fiscal problems that threaten to blight our nation's future. And while congressional Republicans have responded to the challenge, Democrats have ducked responsibility. The Democrat-controlled US Senate hasn't passed a budget since 2009. And Obama's Treasury Secretary admitted to Congressman Ryan that the administration prefers to only criticize GOP efforts and therefore, will not put a plan of its own to save Medicare and other troubled programs on the table.

"Today, on behalf of himself and Gov. Romney, Paul Ryan promised, 'We won't duck the tough issues...we will lead!' That commitment - one Paul Ryan is well-qualified by his experience to fulfill - creates a stark and favorable contrast with the increasingly desperate Obama administration."

Regarding the House Budget Committee Chairman's commitment to national security, Brooks added, "Paul Ryan also understands that America must continue to serve as a bulwark against deadly threats in the international arena. He's successfully fought efforts to trim the budget by hollowing out our military, noting that because the consequences of American decline would be so destabilizing, 'a safer world and a more prosperous America go hand-in-hand.'

"And we are pleased that by picking Paul Ryan, Gov. Romney has opted for a running mate who has a record Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, has already praised as 'very supportive' of the Jewish state. Paul Ryan has earned appreciation from pro-Israel voters by rejecting the Obama administration's tactic of pressuring Israel to make concessions its leaders believe will undermine its security - and he rightly insists that a rejection of violence and incitement on the Palestinian side is an essential precondition for a meaningful peace agreement."

If fairness in paying taxes means the amount you pay is based on the amount you make, then the only group in America paying at least a "fair share" is the top 20%—people who make more than $74,000. For everyone else, the tax code is a bargain.

You wouldn't know this from President Obama's rhetoric, but our tax system, according to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is incredibly progressive. Consider: The top 1% of income earners pay an average federal tax rate of 28.9%. (See the nearby table.) The average federal tax rate on the top 20% is 23.2%. The 20% of taxpayers earning between $50,100 and $73,999 pay an average 15.1%, and so on down the line. The CBO report includes payroll as well as income taxes paid.

There's also another way of looking at fairness, and that's the tax burden. Here, consider the top 20% of income earners (over $74,000). They make 50% of the nation's income but pay nearly 70% of all federal taxes.

The remaining 30% of the tax burden is borne by 80% of the taxpayers, those who make less than $74,000. In short, this group's share of taxes paid, 30%, is lower than the share of income they earn, 50%.

Yet President Obama says that "for some time now, when compared to the middle class," the wealthy "haven't been asked to do their fair share."

He's right that the system isn't fair, but not because the top 1% pay too little. It is because they pay too much.

Mr. Obama has said that some wealthy employers pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. True, some are able to lower their effective federal tax rate by giving millions to charity. Or because they derive much of their income as capital gains or from tax-free municipal bonds.

But middle- and low-income Americans who do not invest also pay lower rates thanks to the deductions they receive, such as a $1,000 per child tax credit (which phases out for couples who make more than $110,000), or the Earned Income Tax Credit, which no one making more than $50,000 is supposed to receive.

The CBO report ("The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009") covers the years 1979-2009. It makes plain that the impression conveyed by the president about what upper-income Americans pay in taxes does not hold up to scrutiny.

First of all, the share of taxes paid by the top 20% has gone up over the last 30 years, while the share of taxes paid by everyone else has gone down. It has gone up despite the tax cuts enacted by President Clinton in 1997 and by President Bush in 2001 and 2003. But that makes no difference to the president. The only group of taxpayers he calls on to "sacrifice" are those already doing all the tax sacrificing.

The top 20% in 1979 made 44.9% of the nation's income and paid 55.3% of all federal taxes. Thirty years later, the top 20% made 50.8% of the nation's income and their share of federal taxes paid had jumped to 67.9%.

And the top 1%? In 1979, this group earned 8.9% of the nation's income and paid 14.2% of all federal taxes. In 2009, they earned 13.4% of the nation's income but their share of the federal tax burden rose to 22.3%.

Meanwhile, the federal tax burden on middle- and lower-income earners is lighter. In 1979, the bottom 20% paid barely any taxes at all, just 2.1%. Now their share of taxes is a minuscule 0.3%. The burden on the middle-income earners ($34,900 to $50,100) has dropped too. In 1979, they paid 13.6% of all federal taxes; in 2009 they paid 9.4%.

One reason our country is so divided is because the president keeps dividing us. If taxes need to be raised to fight a war or fund a cause, the president should ask everyone to pitch in. If the need is national, the solution should be national—and that includes all of us.

But that's not how Mr. Obama governs. We learned during the 2008 campaign that he believes in spreading the wealth around. And recently we learned he doesn't believe that successful people made it on their own. Without the government, the president tells us, job creators and entrepreneurs would not be able to make it in America.

It's really the other way around. Without job creators and the successful, the government wouldn't have any money. So next time Mr. Obama meets someone in the top 1% or even the top 20%, instead of saying they're not paying their fair share, he should simply say thank you.

Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for President George W. Bush, is president of Ari Fleischer Communications and a member of the RJC Board of Directors.

If fairness in paying taxes means the amount you pay is based on the amount you make, then the only group in America paying at least a "fair share" is the top 20%—people who make more than $74,000. For everyone else, the tax code is a bargain.

You wouldn't know this from President Obama's rhetoric, but our tax system, according to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is incredibly progressive. Consider: The top 1% of income earners pay an average federal tax rate of 28.9%. (See the nearby table.) The average federal tax rate on the top 20% is 23.2%. The 20% of taxpayers earning between $50,100 and $73,999 pay an average 15.1%, and so on down the line. The CBO report includes payroll as well as income taxes paid.

There's also another way of looking at fairness, and that's the tax burden. Here, consider the top 20% of income earners (over $74,000). They make 50% of the nation's income but pay nearly 70% of all federal taxes.

The remaining 30% of the tax burden is borne by 80% of the taxpayers, those who make less than $74,000. In short, this group's share of taxes paid, 30%, is lower than the share of income they earn, 50%.

Yet President Obama says that "for some time now, when compared to the middle class," the wealthy "haven't been asked to do their fair share."

He's right that the system isn't fair, but not because the top 1% pay too little. It is because they pay too much.

Mr. Obama has said that some wealthy employers pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. True, some are able to lower their effective federal tax rate by giving millions to charity. Or because they derive much of their income as capital gains or from tax-free municipal bonds.

But middle- and low-income Americans who do not invest also pay lower rates thanks to the deductions they receive, such as a $1,000 per child tax credit (which phases out for couples who make more than $110,000), or the Earned Income Tax Credit, which no one making more than $50,000 is supposed to receive.

The CBO report ("The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009") covers the years 1979-2009. It makes plain that the impression conveyed by the president about what upper-income Americans pay in taxes does not hold up to scrutiny.

First of all, the share of taxes paid by the top 20% has gone up over the last 30 years, while the share of taxes paid by everyone else has gone down. It has gone up despite the tax cuts enacted by President Clinton in 1997 and by President Bush in 2001 and 2003. But that makes no difference to the president. The only group of taxpayers he calls on to "sacrifice" are those already doing all the tax sacrificing.

The top 20% in 1979 made 44.9% of the nation's income and paid 55.3% of all federal taxes. Thirty years later, the top 20% made 50.8% of the nation's income and their share of federal taxes paid had jumped to 67.9%.

And the top 1%? In 1979, this group earned 8.9% of the nation's income and paid 14.2% of all federal taxes. In 2009, they earned 13.4% of the nation's income but their share of the federal tax burden rose to 22.3%.

Meanwhile, the federal tax burden on middle- and lower-income earners is lighter. In 1979, the bottom 20% paid barely any taxes at all, just 2.1%. Now their share of taxes is a minuscule 0.3%. The burden on the middle-income earners ($34,900 to $50,100) has dropped too. In 1979, they paid 13.6% of all federal taxes; in 2009 they paid 9.4%.

One reason our country is so divided is because the president keeps dividing us. If taxes need to be raised to fight a war or fund a cause, the president should ask everyone to pitch in. If the need is national, the solution should be national—and that includes all of us.

But that's not how Mr. Obama governs. We learned during the 2008 campaign that he believes in spreading the wealth around. And recently we learned he doesn't believe that successful people made it on their own. Without the government, the president tells us, job creators and entrepreneurs would not be able to make it in America.

It's really the other way around. Without job creators and the successful, the government wouldn't have any money. So next time Mr. Obama meets someone in the top 1% or even the top 20%, instead of saying they're not paying their fair share, he should simply say thank you.

Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for President George W. Bush, is president of Ari Fleischer Communications and a member of the RJC Board of Directors.

The upshot of this week's political developments is clear: President Obama's ideology and the way he talks about it are becoming a real problem for his reelection campaign.

By now, everyone who pays attention to politics has heard about the President's controversial remarks last Friday After touting his proposal to hike taxes on small businesses and wealthy individuals, the President observed (at the 33:32 mark):

You know, there are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Many commentators have noted that these remarks hew closely to the argument offered by Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in a remarks that were widely circulated on the Internet.

But Obama’s tone may have been even more dismissive of business owners concerns, which leads to what Washington Post political reporter Aaron Blake calls "Obama's 'You didn’t build that' problem."

Obama’s team argues that he is pushing for an increase in government funding for programs that are broadly popular.... But the bluntness of his “you didn’t build that” quote is going to obscure those details. After all, Obama was basically addressing business owners directly in an adversarial way. (emphasis added)

John Kass vividly recalls the “government men coming from City Hall” to collect tribute from his father and uncle as they struggled to build their small business - a neighborhood supermarket:

They wanted steaks.

We didn't eat red steaks at home or yellow bananas. We took home the brown bananas and the brown steaks because we couldn't sell them. But the government men liked the big, red steaks, the fat rib-eyes two to a shrink-wrapped package. You could put 20 or so in a shopping bag.

"Thanks, Greek," they'd say.

That was government.

Many Americans have similar impressions - of government more as an impediment to the fulfillment of their ambitions than a help. Many more worry that an expanding government will tip the scales in the wrong direction by saddling taxpayers with ever-higher taxes to pay for ever-growing social programs and debt service and squelching innovation with burdensome regulation.

Obama’s off-the-cuff encomium to the indispensability of government to our fulfillment only begs the questions that are weighing on these Americans' minds.

Based on what are we to sustain any confidence that a government that squandered the 2009 Stimulus will do better if it sets out on another binge?

When so many state governments are staggering under the burden of past promises come due, why does the federal government seem more interested in bailing out the most imprudent of them than in addressing its own underfunded promises?

What limiting principle prevents this rationale from becoming a justification for unending government power and money grabs? If there is none, it’s no exaggeration to say that accepting this argument would leave our traditional notions of property rights and limited government entirely hollowed out.

Liberals like President Obama may have a tough time understanding where Americans who have such concerns are coming from. They’re used to feeling frustrated that government isn’t growing faster.

Their exasperation is evident in the current spasm of saber-rattling over how to deal with the scheduled expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Democrat Senators can’t contain their bewilderment at colleagues - and voters - who would deny them the proceeds from soaking ‘the rich,’ which they see as a politically easy windfall to collect.

Seemingly, their ideological tunnel-vision makes it impossible for them to look at it from the perspective of people like John Kass’s father. If they could, perhaps they’d understand how outrageous it sounds to struggling small business owners when "government men" insist that Americans who produce tax revenue are "doing fine" and it's those who consume revenue who are bearing the brunt of the weakest economic recovery in living memory.

They’d see Democrats whose actions bespeak a dogged determination to "take care of their own," an attitude that makes Democrat politicians' habit of citing true public goods like public safety and roads appear revoltingly cynical.

The Americans whose concerns the President so brusquely belittled hear the indifference and contempt in his words loud and clear. They see through the liberal Democrat shakedown style of politics.

The upshot of this week's political developments is clear: President Obama's ideology and the way he talks about it are becoming a real problem for his reelection campaign.

By now, everyone who pays attention to politics has heard about the President's controversial remarks last Friday After touting his proposal to hike taxes on small businesses and wealthy individuals, the President observed (at the 33:32 mark):

You know, there are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Many commentators have noted that these remarks hew closely to the argument offered by Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in a remarks that were widely circulated on the Internet.

But Obama’s tone may have been even more dismissive of business owners concerns, which leads to what Washington Post political reporter Aaron Blake calls "Obama's 'You didn’t build that' problem."

Obama’s team argues that he is pushing for an increase in government funding for programs that are broadly popular.... But the bluntness of his “you didn’t build that” quote is going to obscure those details. After all, Obama was basically addressing business owners directly in an adversarial way. (emphasis added)

John Kass vividly recalls the “government men coming from City Hall” to collect tribute from his father and uncle as they struggled to build their small business - a neighborhood supermarket:

They wanted steaks.

We didn't eat red steaks at home or yellow bananas. We took home the brown bananas and the brown steaks because we couldn't sell them. But the government men liked the big, red steaks, the fat rib-eyes two to a shrink-wrapped package. You could put 20 or so in a shopping bag.

"Thanks, Greek," they'd say.

That was government.

Many Americans have similar impressions - of government more as an impediment to the fulfillment of their ambitions than a help. Many more worry that an expanding government will tip the scales in the wrong direction by saddling taxpayers with ever-higher taxes to pay for ever-growing social programs and debt service and squelching innovation with burdensome regulation.

Obama’s off-the-cuff encomium to the indispensability of government to our fulfillment only begs the questions that are weighing on these Americans' minds.

Based on what are we to sustain any confidence that a government that squandered the 2009 Stimulus will do better if it sets out on another binge?

When so many state governments are staggering under the burden of past promises come due, why does the federal government seem more interested in bailing out the most imprudent of them than in addressing its own underfunded promises?

What limiting principle prevents this rationale from becoming a justification for unending government power and money grabs? If there is none, it’s no exaggeration to say that accepting this argument would leave our traditional notions of property rights and limited government entirely hollowed out.

Liberals like President Obama may have a tough time understanding where Americans who have such concerns are coming from. They’re used to feeling frustrated that government isn’t growing faster.

Their exasperation is evident in the current spasm of saber-rattling over how to deal with the scheduled expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Democrat Senators can’t contain their bewilderment at colleagues - and voters - who would deny them the proceeds from soaking ‘the rich,’ which they see as a politically easy windfall to collect.

Seemingly, their ideological tunnel-vision makes it impossible for them to look at it from the perspective of people like John Kass’s father. If they could, perhaps they’d understand how outrageous it sounds to struggling small business owners when "government men" insist that Americans who produce tax revenue are "doing fine" and it's those who consume revenue who are bearing the brunt of the weakest economic recovery in living memory.

They’d see Democrats whose actions bespeak a dogged determination to "take care of their own," an attitude that makes Democrat politicians' habit of citing true public goods like public safety and roads appear revoltingly cynical.

The Americans whose concerns the President so brusquely belittled hear the indifference and contempt in his words loud and clear. They see through the liberal Democrat shakedown style of politics.